Posted
by
timothyon Wednesday December 03, 2008 @06:41PM
from the for-a-limited-time-only dept.

smallkathryn writes "Technical specifications have just been released for the Australian net filtering trial. The trial, which aims to prove that ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users, will go live on 24 December. The trial will involve ISPs choosing a commercially available hardware filter from an internet content filter (ICF) vendor, adding it to their networks, then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites. Still no indication of how peer-to-peer information will be addressed."

As someone who watches the success of botnets despite widespread efforts to blacklist trojan servers (by URL, IP, subnets...), I'd say when a group of zealous, dedicated and passionate people fighting malware can't even gain a foot, a group of underpaid, usually underfunded and undermotivated public officials won't really succeed either.

This is the time to invest in and bring to market an encryption product to the masses in Australia.

But do the Aussies want encryption more than they want filtering? The upstream block against hard-core porn is an easy sell to most parents. That makes your cheap VPN tunnel a product for the geek and not a product for "the masses."

I do not believe any government should censor speech. This sort of technology is ripe for abuse. There will probably be sites which "accidently" are filtered, maybe sites with unpopular political views, or legal material, such as adult pornography. As well, this sets dangerous precedents as well, that government has a right to censor things. It could set a dangerous precedent for censoring things we all agree should not be censored, like pornography of consenting adults and unpopular (communist, marxist, etc) political views.

They're already adding otherwise legal sites to the blacklist. From the second link:

One of the more recent concerns over the blacklist is its extension from 1,300 sites to 11,300 sites containing "objectionable material", the content of which has not been made clear. The only details that have been divulged about them is that pro-euthanasia and pro-anorexia sites will be included on the blacklist.

MPAA ratings are purely voluntary, though. In Australia, the Classifications are legally enforced.

And the Australian Classifications are pretty draconian - if a video game is unsuitable for children it's banned outright (GTA, Fallout 3, F.E.A.R. 2, Silent Hill, Singles: Flirt Up Your Life, Manhunt have all been banned in Australia). Every state in Australia has all X-rated material on the RC list. Even fairly tame Penthouse-level material is banned if they don't verify the user's age using a credit card or

Really? How do I show a film that I haven't had voluntarily classified?

if a video game is unsuitable for children it's banned outright (GTA, Fallout 3, F.E.A.R. 2, Silent Hill, Singles: Flirt Up Your Life, Manhunt have all been banned in Australia). Every state in Australia has all X-rated material on the RC list.

States, but not territories. There are efforts to allow R rated games, but these are being blocked by one state Attorney General.

Recently, I wrote about the concept of an Internet that knows no boundaries in relation to how content is distributed and consumed, but today I would like to talk about it in the broader sense of free speech and censorship.

I find Internet censorship to be a deplorable concept, not because it prevents me from consuming things that a jurisdictional entity considers inappropriate or immoral, but because it stymies the legitimate aggregation and consumption of ideas.

One of the more interesting side effects of the Information Revolution has been the unification of our people--not in some patriotic or otherwise political sense, but our entire race. We can now explore and understand the world around us in ways that were not previously possible. I can converse with someone that was present in the Mumbai attacks last week, talk to an Islamic jihadist, converse with my parents across the country, and participate in a discussion on the election of a black president. I can read about the newest innovations in the scientific world, find the latest juice on my favorite celebrity, watch a movie produced by some indie director, and play a game that some 12 year old wrote in his mom's basement. The Internet is free (libre) to our imaginations and thoughts to explore.

Therefore, it is not too hard to imagine that there are those that have expressions that differ from our own tastes and acceptances. Does that mean that the we have the right to muzzle them? Remember, the Internet is free (libre) from jurisdictional bounds, so who are we to restrict what is published there? Is child pornography justification enough to silence the innocent voices of those who may become collateral damage in the censorship fight against it? Is copyright so sacrosanct that it should smother legally distributed content as well?

Australians are in the fight of their lives to take back their freedom of speech, revoked by the government, a victim in the so called fight against child porn. It is very easy to say that these new powers won't do very much as far as stopping and preventing child porn, but it isn't too much of a stretch to say the sole purpose of these laws is to grant the government self-anointed power to control the things that its constituents publish and view.

The Internet is still new territory, that is for sure, but we have an opportunity to break down language, cultural, racial, educational, and political barriers with it. Why would we destroy it with crusades against things over which there is little or no control? Are we so myopic that we think the the tragedies of child pornography and human trafficking will be reduced (or even end) with maiming the one medium of humanity's greatest achievement of interpersonal communication?

I trust no man, not even myself, to control such power because even the wisest of the wise are not infallible, incorruptible, or undeceivable. No, let the Internet be what humanity shapes it to be. Through the portals of this great experiment in human discourse, we get to peel back the layers of filters to see what humanity really is. And maybe that is what makes it so uncomfortable to ponder--because we may not like what we see.

What a coincidence! I would love to see the internet devoid of religious reactionaries.

But I guess when everyone gets to blacklist what he doesn't like, the internet gets quite dark pretty quickly.

I don't like a few political, religious or other views. But their right to voice their opinion is as valid as mine. I consider it wrong to tell anyone what to read, think, write or say. The only line I draw is at the "do" part of your freedoms, if they cut into someone else's freedoms.

The best part: Unclassifiable material is banned... ok, and? I hear you say, well in our grand nation there is no R rating for online content, much like there is no R rating for video game content. Thus these things will be banned.

This leads us to the absurd situation whereby under the current proposals you will not be able to legally stream video content that you can hire from the video store down the road... if its rated 'naughty'.

Eh, if the government didn't classify movies and such, we'd have a hodgepodge of private organizations doing it; with wildly varying results. One family's NC-17 rating is another family's PG. Also, the rating system has grown more lax over time. Imagine this occurring in the aforementioned hodgepodge at varying rates of decay.

So I'm fine with a single classification system, but I want them to be guidelines for consumer convenience, not rules set in stone.

The problem is that it is illegal to sell a film in Australia without a classification, and that the Classification Board has the right, which it exercises often, to refuse classification. This effectively bans films which are considered "offensive".

My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.

As a fellow Aussie I find most of your posts insightfull and informative. However I feel compeled to point out the phrase "which it exercises often" only applies for certain definitions of often [refused-cl...cation.com].

I think the classification board does a great job but I disagree with outright bans on philosophical grounds. The current push for filtering is a storm in a tea-cup and is driven by the governments need to placate senator Fielding. After KRuddy has got what he wants out of Fielding the mandatory filtering legisla

Actually, the rules vary from state to state. There are things (like Peter Jackson's Bad Taste) that sell themselves on being "banned in Queensland." There is also the fact that Canberra is where you go for hard core porn. So, the solution is to get your local MP to pick some up while Parliament is sitting.

My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.

That is actually how things work here in Norway these days. Good Thing (TM) if you ask me.

Actually, the idea is that the clean feed for kids will be opt in. The controversy is that apparently there will be mandatory filtering for "offensive" material.. which includes anything that would be X rated (which is only available in the ACT and NT) or refused classification (NC). Particularly, this includes any porn where the participants are engaged in sex (rather than just pretending to be).. aka, all hardcore.

No, there will be mandatory filtering on ILLEGAL material only. Child pornography, bestiality etc. And while, yes, X rated material is only available in the ACT and NT by law... that law is in NO way enforced. I can almost guarantee this mandatory blacklist will NOT block all hardcore sex.

They haven't actually stated what's in the list, but I would say it'll be:

Child PornographyRape (Or any non-consensual sexual stuff I would imagine)Bestiality

First of all, the filter's scope is definitely beyond illegal material. See here [defendingscoundrels.com] for a legal explanation of the terms - most RC and prohibited content is actually perfectly legal to possess.

Secondly, the minister has actually confirmed that sites such as pro-euthanasia websites will be banned. Drug use is also enough to get material put on the list. We're consistently told that the worst material on the list is child pornography, but that's beside the point - we need to know what the least harmful material on the blacklist is to make an informed decision. But we won't - the list is a government secret, and you will be jailed for revealing it.

And these "lobby groups" trying to add whatever the fuck they want to the filter? They hold the balance of power in the senate... in fact it seems that a major motivation behind the Government's plan is to buy their votes. Those lobby groups want all pornography banned outright, others want gambling websites blocked. The filter will in no way stop at "illegal" material.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Putting aside the question of whether filtering is desirable in the first place ("think of the children!"), or issues regarding the potential for future abuse (e.g., censorship of unpopular speech, and who determines what needs to be filtered in the first place) at the technical level any halfway-reliable filtering technology that peeks into the transport layer [wikipedia.org] is going to add a huge amount of overhead that will increase costs and degrade performance. Good for the equipment companies, but bad for everyone who would prefer their Internet connection as dumb and fast as possible.

OTOH, OpenDNS [opendns.com] provides a free, opt-in filtering service [opendns.com] available to anyone who wants it. It's very easy to deploy, why not just use that?

We patch apache (patch XXX obviously) to toss back hex or D-word IP addresses when hit with them. Actually I don't think a patch is necessary; I can think of a quick and dirty way to do it in Korn with forward and reverse proxying on..huh, pretty much any apache from 1.33 on.

Then all we need to do is wait until the Aussies load so many obfuscated hosts into their border boxen that they all fry themselves and the silly idea it is will be really quite clear to anyone with opposable thumbs.

Senator Steven "Liar" Conroy. He has claimed over and over, that the Mandatory system he wishes to implement is of the same variety as what's in Europe. NSW calls Conroy on Euro filter fudge' [zdnet.com.au]

Which after a little searching one finds completely untrue. He has been questioned by other members of parliament and skirted around the issue by feeding the "Unwanted Material" line.

Huh? No new and interesting way to get around such filtering is needed. Any VPN, proxy, anonymiser, tunnel etc will do it in moments. High school kids bypassed it in less than 2 minutes when it was demo'd at a local school.

Although you could have been sarcastic and I missed it.

"They have painted a yellow line around the doorway. We must now try to investigate new methods to bypass this yellow barrier. Perhaps we will step over it and see how that goes."

Regardless, as (almost) all of us know there's a number of ways to bypass this bloody stupid [dbcde.gov.au] filter.

Disclaimer: I don't think Child Pornography should be legal. However, I very strongly disagree that the Government has the right to put in access-Level filtering, regardless of their case.The ends DO NOT justify the means.

I do think Child Pornography should be legal. There is never a legetimate reason to stop information. For society to be free, information must only be stopped at the source (security) or destination (filtering)

Child pornography is not "information." Child pornography is a product made through the rape and other sexual abuse of children.

A picture is information. A video is information. Sound is information. QED

Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.

While I'm not pro-censorship or anything like that, I find your argument and sig.... disagreeable. You seem to be seeing the world in black and white, without the shades of grey.

You say a picture or a video is just information. Ok, fair enough.

But just because information can be freely duplicted doesn't mean it isn't affected by the laws of supply and demand.

Some people will pay for this "information" (kiddie porn).
Therefore other people will create child porn, for money.

The creation of child porn (your definition may vary)should be punished, in my opinion, by death. Commissioning of child porn is accessory to the crime and should also be punished. On the other hand those who have not commissioned the deed should not be punished even if they buy child porn because they did not have a hand in the act. Would you make it a crime to sell the 9/11 videos? Surely billions of dollars have been made from those crimes. Where is the divide between the newscaster hawking scenes of death (if it bleeds it leads) and the exploitive pornographer hawking his wares? Surely either both should be illegal or neither.

Unfortunately those people do unspeakable awful things to innocent children in order to create the information, in order to satisfy that demand.

Punish them! punish them harshly! You will have all the evidence you need.

By your logic I have done nothing wrong if I say I will provide $10,000,000 for a video of someone shooting you in the head, and someone follows through and I pay them. Or your children. Heck, your whole family. If all of you died horribly, simply because I paid for some "information" have I done anything wrong? By your logic, no.

By my logic you have done something horrible, in commissioning the crime. The newscaster who puts it on for the 8:00 news hour in return for commercial profits has not. If you had specified a computer-generated video of such then nothing wrong would have been done at all.

Step 1: Use DNS to get address of site.Step 2: Use IP address to send packets to site (usually over HTTP).

The DNS server only ever sees the site name (not the path after the site name). It is only later in the HTTP protocol that the actual URL gets sent. At that point the browser is already using the IP address (though the server name may optionally be buried in the HTTP headers).

This means that URL based filtering is a non-starter (and every network operator

Question: Suppose you wanted to get around IP address blocking, but didn't need the overhead of anonymity that Tor provides. You just need an automated way to find peers on the other side of "The Wall" to act as proxies. Is there something out there to do this that might perform better than Tor?)

The '.' is the root of the DNS hierarchy. It's optional when specifying an Internet hostname but all software which handles domain names is required to handle it properly. Programmers of early web filters didn't know this so if they put the following URL into their block list:

Adding the dot meant the URL wouldn't match the entry in the blocklist. All the vendors patched this pretty quickly though and then the next workaround discovered was encoding the domain name as its hex equivalent. Took longer for the vendors to patch that, but they finally did. Most of the web filters out there have had plenty of time to come up to speed on all the workarounds by this point, though.

If I were the ISP, I would add a few extra domains to the blacklist. Block some things that I as an ISP find objectionable, such as the web sites of candidates that support filtering. Media outlets that carry advertising for candidates that I don't like. Etc.

Shouldn't trials test a hypothesis or design? If you set out to prove something with a trial, I'm fairly certain that you will carefully design it so that it does, indeed, prove it; as you have already decided you will do it and are now cynically producing evidence.

Trials should be neutral, investigating or testing or gathering data. The *RESULTS* of a trial will support or disprove a concept.

They made the election promise without investigating whether or not it was possible. So the only result they will accept is one that confirms their beliefs.

Well actually, the election promise was to "provide" filtering, but not "mandate" it, but a censor-happy government with the need to satisfy fundamentalist third-parties wasn't going to stop there once the technology exists.

They did some preliminary testing back in June - the results showed an average speed reduction of 30% between filters (5/6 were over

Case 1: Fewer than, say, 5% of all queries hit the blacklist filter and are blocked.
This of course means that the blacklist will only impede a small, acceptable percentage of people and therefore should be implemented.

Case 2: Many more than 5% of all queries hit the blacklist filter and are blocked.
This of course means that there is a raging epidemic of accessing undesirable material is going on and the blacklist is therefore urgently req

As mentioned in my blog [homelinux.org], I think if politicians are so keen to 'clean up the internet', they should start closer to home, in their own PCs. How many times have we seen Australian politicians in various compromising positions... 'chair-sniffing', kiddie-porn scandals, and of course Prime Minister Rudd can't even remember his night out in Vagas where he had lap dances etc paid for by the Aussie taxpayer.

Of course this is less Labor's fault than fucking Family First, that bunch of ultra-conservative freaks wh

I'm fairly sure one of the first things added to the list will be torrent indexes. No more TPB or ISOHunt for Australians. This is exactly what Australian media companies want: they used to have it good, they would hold over US shows and movies for rating windows and screw over viewers that just wanted to watch stuff current.

The big problem is, Australian media holds a lot of sway with the scum that is an Australian politician.

Of course you'll be able to access them in a round-about fashion. Maybe it will eventually become illegal to bypass the filter, call it hacking. Aussie freedom will go, china style.

You never ever make a major change like this before holidays, least of all Christmas Hoidays. It ensures that if something does go wrong, there's no one on hand to fix it. When lots of "working families" will be communicating by VOIP or webcam over the Internet, the time of this is sheer stupidity. I'd say Rudd and Conroy have timed it just before Christmas to make sure the story lost by the media, is buried amongst all the Yuletide Queen's Christmas Message,

Rest assured there will be a law that absolves them. Else the lights will go out pretty fast in the fiberoptic cables of Aussieland.

Because, as everyone here knows, there WILL be downloads and there WILL be illegal content, and you can filter however and whatever you like, it will get through. Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country. And when I am in constant danger of a lawsuit that threatens my very business in some country, I'll pull out. Providing internet services is a lossy business in Australia? Ok. Shut down the branch, we move the resources to some other country. It's done everywhere? Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.

If ISPs become the new scapegoat of the sue happy industries, they will close their doors. Unlike real people, corporations can easily move, and they can easily "die" without anyone being hurt.

Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country.

I don't know how it works in the US (or wherever you live) but the 2 of the top 3 ISPs in Australia (Telstra and iiNet) only serve within Australia, AFAIK. There headquarters are here too, meaning it would be difficult to move, especially since they own so much of the local infrastructure.The reason for this is likely that Australia is geographically isolated from other countries, being a continent in its own right.

Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.

Telstra is a telco, but iiNet is only an ISP. There's actually talk of them providing IPTV next year, but that would be over the internet.Besides, at least one company will remain, and feel free to charge whatever they want (probably Telstra, due to their government given monopoly on the infrastructure). Isn't that the situation in the US - few people can choose an ISP other than Comcast?

The government panders to them only for a single reason, namely that it is in the interest of the government to pander to them. More precisely, they're the excuse because "see, at least SOME want that!"

Else it would have been easy. You want filtering? No problem, we make a law that your ISP has to provide it at your request, for free (i.e. everyone has to pay for it, because no provider will ever sit on expenses and not brush it off to its clients). If you're concerned that you don't want to see OMGWTF cont

I'm confused: as far as I can see, about the only people who want this implemented are Stephen Conroy and Family First. The Liberals don't want it, the Greens don't want it, citizens don't want it, child protection groups don't want it, and ISPs are only doing it to prove to the government that they're lying about the speed impact.

Australia has classification and censorship (aka banning) of film, tv, radio, video games, newspapers, magazines, advertisements.. why wouldn't we want classification and censorship of the Internet too? I, personally, think classification is a good thing, but it should be voluntary and banning/censorship is just draconian. But are my views in the majority? Who knows. The current policies of my government would not seem to indicate so.

Don't quote me on this, but as far as I'm aware, only iiNet and Optus are participating.

I wouldn't be in a rush to leave if you're with them, though. The head of iiNet said that Conroy was the worst Comms. minister in the 15 years the internet industry has existed, and is only participating because it's the only way to show the government how stupid it is.

If we don't show them how stupid it is, showing them exactly what sites are blocked by mistake, how much it will slow the internet, how easy it is to brea